The title of this thread would appear laughable for anyone who practices audio more than a week. This is as beaten subject as Tubes vs. SS or Mosfet vs. Bipoloar. However, with all my awareness about the popular Analog vs. Digital debate I with astonishment would note one absolutely ridicules moment:  the true Analog vs. Digital conversation and the objective observation about the Analog vs. Digital rivalry never took place, it least I never heard or read about it. Let me to explain.

We are very much accustom to a superficial hoodlums running more or less capable analog and digital setups and claim superiority of one or another  format, mostly everyone are in a favor of analog.  The LPs are better than 44/16 CD, the 15ips ¼” tape is better than the stupid SACD, the 30ips 1” tape is better than Pontius Pilate revised his judgment… The list of the absurdities might be going on but there is a very fundamental mistake that all of trios people make and this mistake absolutely disqualifiers the judgments of those “experts”.

Before I go on and post my observation to the subject I would propose whoever wishes to guess where the disqualification and confusion lies.

philosophical confusion


Undoubtly,analog and digital are mere "medium" in the world of "contents and intentions" music is made of. Talking philosophically, If we dare
to discuss or give credit in any way to such a dilemma,we stay in fact out of the place where  music itself works and then we are outside the
audio practice that makes  sense only as something DEEPLY related  to music.That´s the important thing  . Moreover, "audio practice" is a medium,
not to mention how a "medium to the medium" analog or digital is. There´s nothing more than that.If you put it on the table  , you are 
confusing things and playing the wrong game. 

-autodiscualification

Whoever audio leader (or anybody else) supports,discuss or gives credit today to any analog vs digital dilemma  in audio (equally to any different kinds of dilemmas or Themes the world of hifi supported through decades)  demostrates one or more of the following :

.-short practice in audio
.-wrong  or undeveloped musical tastes
.-ignorance of the  issues relatives to generation of audio as communication between human beings (composer-musician-listener)
.-disability of understanding of any complex intelectual and/or spiritual issue the humans had developed trough history
.-incapacity of discerning the tools-from-the objectives that supports developement of any human discipline or intelectual activity
.-luck of any serious capability to dive under superficiality of things
.-corrupted or low  ethical personal evolution 
.-low analitical and rational skills
.-low degree of spontaneus or "mentally open" responses to any external complex interactions

I would say that such a thing like the  mentioned dilemma  reflects precisely and sinthetically every disease,prejudice,snobism and
absurdity  the world of audio ( or the so called world of hifi) supports and promote based on the inability to discriminate by the community of "customers".
True that "customers" would need to be guided trhough the path of audio  as  audiodiscipline  is complex  and needs high grade of
sensibility (the most difficult to develop it seems ) and rational skills .

I couldn,t say who of every audio dealer / leader  reaches any high degree on things that really  matters .

Regards
Edu

Actually, Eduardo, I disagree.  

Although I do concur with many of your proposals but I insist that the mistakes that people make in their analog vs. digital thinking are purely methodological and those mistakes that disqualify their conclusions are very far from philosophical confusions. The key in what I imply is not the word “autodiscualification” and I do insist that I do not play wrong game. I think what I lay the cards on the table it will be more obvious. In fact in one way or other I have written about it within my site. Before I explain my position here is the typical what I call “BS about analog vs. digital” from MTV 1993

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR7227_ndqQ

Romy,i Would state that any  digital vs analog discussion  must take place only in context of recording  of musical material, not within the world of music reproduction itself.

 be it analog tape or computer media,raw recordings (let´s call it "master sound"), obtained trough  a given setup  of  quality microphones,and managed by good recording engineer  implies the higher "inner quality" or say "potential raw sounds-content-quality" you can get in a given moment. But such a context is different game than sound reproduction althoug obviously related to.

You only have to listen to  master materials maybe trough the machines that recorded the events, to realize that the mentioned "inner potential raw sounds-content quality"  you can get (say 1/4 analog tape, 24/88 file or whatever) would  be enough (as a starting point) in context of any given playback system .Yes, you can discuss sound quality of those recordings but never in the sense of being better for the sake of digital or analog, but in the sense of being better or worse as a "recording by itself" or say as a recording in its "technical quality" , "resolution level", "dynamic range" etc.

I´ve found that even relatively low resolution digital recordings  being original raw material are better than higher resolution ones (may be wrongly processed afterwards).So Even here the dilemma seems to be relatively unimportant as "sound quality problem", being more like "technical quality problem".

About digital vs analog thinking (within the context of playback and "audioreviewing"), it occurs then in the wrong place,  trough hifi setups and people whose level of
 methodology derives from  corrupted relationships within the highend industry , sound obtained from all of this crap. Then add the source material ,say "test cd from nowherehifisound" containing a given "style of music" .Add again The higher level of intelectual superficiality and see if analog is better than digital or viceversa .....¡Please let us be serious¡.

Amir wrote:

dividing structure to it's elements and working on elements then constructing new structure from new elements.

drdna wrote:

The first key would be that the digital reproduction be of a high enough sample rate to fall below the threshold of perception. The scond would be, in my mind, that the process of reproduction not create a new structure, but reproduce the old one. Adrian

Paul S wrote:

I happen to use almost exclusively LPs as source...

Paul S wrote:

Amir, I agree with you wholeheartedly, on a philosophical level, and this in turn underpins my overview of life, art, etc. But, in practical terms, the fractioning off of any "event" is certain, once we try to "reconstruct" that event. Basically, any and every event is an original.  So it essentially becomes a matter of doing our best to try to package an event for the "future" that we will at some point try to relate to in some "Future Now".  How does this work, at all? Whereas I am incliined to dismiss digital at the conceptual/technical level, it turns out that I have, somehow, gotten good musical experiences via digital. Who can say if this this is due to "lowered expectations", re-conditioning my brain, or...? I happen to use almost exclusively LPs as source, and I would most certainly use 30 ips master tapes, if I could, based on my perception of sound quality, per se. But I can't rule out the possibility that I might at some point hear digital sources that work just as well as 30 ips tape for me, whether those from "closer to the source", or just something that happens to click.  I mean, I could not rule thius out, based on experience. Best regards, Paul S

manisandher wrote:

How many digitally-critical die-hard analoguers are listening to digitally recorded LPs... and then waxing lyrical about the superiority of analogue?

Romy the Cat wrote:

The rule of the game is the analog can’t delay but only filter but digital can’t filter but only delay.

Amir wrote:

... in my idea in long listening term we can undrestand difference of them.

Romy the Cat wrote:

However, the result of direct conversion of analog into digital is practically NEVER exposed to audio people.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Digital and analog are different by nature. It is not about descritization but about the fact that improperly “mastered” analog make sound worse but do not loose subconscious  spiritual affect of musicality, recognized at higher level of musical perception. (link). With Digital is it different.  In contrary, the corrupted digital tears the core of musical expressivity, making sound unfertile and not communicative. Beyond all of it there is the absolutely ridicules fact that industry embrace digital primary because the industry needed to manage the digital corruption or as they call it the “digital editing”.

Romy the Cat wrote:

The said truth is that analog is editable but digital is not. The rule of the game is the analog can't delay but only filter but digital can't filter but only delay.

manisandher wrote:

It just seems to me that some people feel that they can correct the 'digital diarrhoea' earlier in the chain... usually by using vinyl and/or tubes. I find this simply ridiculous.

eduardo wrote:

Amir: audio practice relates to "actual sound" not to (any kind) of overloaded analysys of "inner character of recorded or played material ". You don´t analyze sound, you analyze the capability of a given "sound-conceived  structure" to produce sound. alowing you to communicate (or not) with music. Recorded music , continuously or discontinously "constructed", is not problem for our ears, if a given threshold of "quality" or "resolution" can  connect our brain to the "communicative potential"  music demands. It´s not "what you like" nor "how it sounds" but What you dont like and what you know and you are aware of.    Again, the dilemma turns out to be a false dilemma discussed by people who want to play the game of "adjetives spreading " on sound and hardware. You can go for adjetives to the Music, but please ,never to the sound . That is for sure, Audio practice requires  autodiscipline, not adjetives.  The work to do ( to reasonable audio-practice ) is to develop own reference points in order to clean up the way to connect with the music you are aware of,  with the tools you have at hand or may afford after a rational and honest music listening  process. Regards

Romy the Cat wrote:

Anyhow, the point is that audio people do not deal with original raw digital file therefore their comments about Analog vs. Digital are not relevant as they do not see the true digital but rather a digital crap.

Doron wrote:

So what can the layman who wants to enjoy digital do? Where would a normal guy get the raw files and how will he be able to play them?

Well, I do not know but my bitching about the domination of the “mastered releases“ very much in tune with my vision of about how audio shall be:

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=6917

I am getting the “row” files from FM but I have to admit that FM is not perfect media not to mention that it is in proper format  it have almost gone from most of the locations. I am very optimistic about what BSO started: releasing the “live” row 88/24 files from their concerts. If we have a few dozen orchestras around then would offer the same service then it would fill the vacuum of raw digital streams

Sure the unlimited wet dream of my would be a dedicated, subscription only, high resolution feed with well managed (very loaded component) LIVE classical programming, preferably with “On Demand” option. I think we are not far from there and all that we need is the idiots who run the industry today to ground to die out and new people with new idea to take over.